V Z Miloushev1, D S Chow2, C G Filippi2. 1. From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Columbia University, New York, New York. vzm1@columbia.edu. 2. From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diffusion tensor metrics are potential in vivo quantitative neuroimaging biomarkers for the characterization of brain tumor subtype. This meta-analysis analyzes the ability of mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy to distinguish low-grade from high-grade gliomas in the identifiable tumor core and the region of peripheral edema. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis of articles with mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy data for World Health Organization low-grade (I, II) and high-grade (III, IV) gliomas, between 2000 and 2013, was performed. Pooled data were analyzed by using the odds ratio and mean difference. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for patient-level data. RESULTS: The minimum mean diffusivity of high-grade gliomas was decreased compared with low-grade gliomas. High-grade gliomas had decreased average mean diffusivity values compared with low-grade gliomas in the tumor core and increased average mean diffusivity values in the peripheral region. High-grade gliomas had increased FA values compared with low-grade gliomas in the tumor core, decreased values in the peripheral region, and a decreased fractional anisotropy difference between the tumor core and peripheral region. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum mean diffusivity differs significantly with respect to the World Health Organization grade of gliomas. Statistically significant effects of tumor grade on average mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy were observed, supporting the concept that high-grade tumors are more destructive and infiltrative than low-grade tumors. Considerable heterogeneity within the literature may be due to systematic factors in addition to underlying lesion heterogeneity.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diffusion tensor metrics are potential in vivo quantitative neuroimaging biomarkers for the characterization of brain tumor subtype. This meta-analysis analyzes the ability of mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy to distinguish low-grade from high-grade gliomas in the identifiable tumor core and the region of peripheral edema. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis of articles with mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy data for World Health Organization low-grade (I, II) and high-grade (III, IV) gliomas, between 2000 and 2013, was performed. Pooled data were analyzed by using the odds ratio and mean difference. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for patient-level data. RESULTS: The minimum mean diffusivity of high-grade gliomas was decreased compared with low-grade gliomas. High-grade gliomas had decreased average mean diffusivity values compared with low-grade gliomas in the tumor core and increased average mean diffusivity values in the peripheral region. High-grade gliomas had increased FA values compared with low-grade gliomas in the tumor core, decreased values in the peripheral region, and a decreased fractional anisotropy difference between the tumor core and peripheral region. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum mean diffusivity differs significantly with respect to the World Health Organization grade of gliomas. Statistically significant effects of tumor grade on average mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy were observed, supporting the concept that high-grade tumors are more destructive and infiltrative than low-grade tumors. Considerable heterogeneity within the literature may be due to systematic factors in addition to underlying lesion heterogeneity.
Authors: J V Hajnal; M Doran; A S Hall; A G Collins; A Oatridge; J M Pennock; I R Young; G M Bydder Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1991 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Andreas Stadlbauer; Oliver Ganslandt; Rolf Buslei; Thilo Hammen; Stephan Gruber; Ewald Moser; Michael Buchfelder; Erich Salomonowitz; Christopher Nimsky Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Roel G W Verhaak; Katherine A Hoadley; Elizabeth Purdom; Victoria Wang; Yuan Qi; Matthew D Wilkerson; C Ryan Miller; Li Ding; Todd Golub; Jill P Mesirov; Gabriele Alexe; Michael Lawrence; Michael O'Kelly; Pablo Tamayo; Barbara A Weir; Stacey Gabriel; Wendy Winckler; Supriya Gupta; Lakshmi Jakkula; Heidi S Feiler; J Graeme Hodgson; C David James; Jann N Sarkaria; Cameron Brennan; Ari Kahn; Paul T Spellman; Richard K Wilson; Terence P Speed; Joe W Gray; Matthew Meyerson; Gad Getz; Charles M Perou; D Neil Hayes Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: D S Chow; J Qi; X Guo; V Z Miloushev; F M Iwamoto; J N Bruce; A B Lassman; L H Schwartz; A Lignelli; B Zhao; C G Filippi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: E D H Gates; J S Lin; J S Weinberg; S S Prabhu; J Hamilton; J D Hazle; G N Fuller; V Baladandayuthapani; D T Fuentes; D Schellingerhout Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Céline De Looze; Alan Beausang; Jane Cryan; Teresa Loftus; Patrick G Buckley; Michael Farrell; Seamus Looby; Richard Reilly; Francesca Brett; Hugh Kearney Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: S C Thust; S Hassanein; S Bisdas; J H Rees; H Hyare; J A Maynard; S Brandner; C Tur; H R Jäger; T A Yousry; L Mancini Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: José Gerardo Suárez-García; Javier Miguel Hernández-López; Eduardo Moreno-Barbosa; Benito de Celis-Alonso Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240